Talk:Janjua/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Janjua. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Why every time Janjua jat is removed from articles

I would like to bring the attentions of Wikipedia Management toward an important point, when many people trying to write that they are Janjua jat, this is itself a proof that Janjua are also Jat. As many tribes in this world you can see like Bhutta, Minhas and many more, they called Jat and Rajput at the same time in different regions.

I want who gave this authority to a person to remove and change the dimensions of the historical part of this world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.69.46 (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you dont seem to be understanding here that although many tribes have two off shoots (one Jat and other Rajput) the Rajput representation of Janjua has had a consistent and well recorded reputation, referenced in tens if not hundreds of books, and is very distinct from the alleged Jat Janjuas who are very small and obscure in numbers.

The Jat side is more than welcome to begin an article on their own referenced and cited history where available, I offer to help with it if you like, tough my time is scarce. But I would hasten to add that the article cannot claim the achievements and history of the Rajput side as their own. This article specifically refers to the Rajputs of Janjua and in no way can you justify claiming their history for anyone else. Hope this makes sense. --~Raja~ (talk) 11:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Janjuas are found in Jats, Tarkhans and many other castes, so either we merge into one large article (which is impracticle), or we have a seprate Jat Janjua article (which is more practicle). Thanks--Sikh-History 13:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

All janjuas found is other castes except Jatts claimed to be the Rajput. I would like to clear the misconception. They dont called themselves tarhan or soemthing but Rajputs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garjakh (talk • contribs) 14:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

i would like to add some comments on jat janjua , the janjuas who select the profession of farming and land cultivation are addressed as title chaudhry where as others are called raja as title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.231.8 (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Consensus for content inclusion

There is need for consensus weather this article should include content for Telis Lohars , Tarkhans , Musaliis ,and other castes groups such as Jat, or that a new article is created .

• Ideally this article is adequate and my vote goes for making this article more comprehensive , other options are have one separate article for all other Janjua castes ,
• yet another option is to have multiple articles for different Janjua castes .
• Also there must be more comprehensive content also covering other major historical occupations .

Intothefire (talk) 12:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The article title is Janjua Rajput and therefore talks of them. Other castes are welcome to write up their own pages. The Rajput name of the article clearly indicates which caste this relates to. - supersaiyan

I am laughing after reading this section of the article. " Telis Lohars , Tarkhans , Musaliis ,and other castes groups" these are not the sub castes of any Caste. These are the people who adopted the castes and called themselves rajputs. e.g You can find many Muslais, Jolahay etc who called themselved Bhatti. Nai (barbers) Khokhar Rajputs. I have even seen Tarhaans called themselves Bajwa, chatha, Sandhu and Waraich jats. Sane in bhutta, siyal etc

I would like to clear the concept, if anybody call himself something that does not mean that this is the subcaste of that main caste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garjakh (talk • contribs) 15:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

why the over emphasis on religion?

Why does this article over emphasize religion? who cares, this is an article about the tribe of Janjuas, this inclusion of religion takes away from the true account of this very interesting ethnic group. Incidently, there are also Janjua Christians and even Jews, but there is no mention of them. Why dont we just focus on the ethnic and historical aspect of this interesting tribe with mentioning only pertinent moments in history where there is a need to mention religious affiliations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.1.49.142 (talk) 08:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll be doing a lot of work on this one over the next few weeks. I have fired a few "warning shots" and need to see what develops from those before deciding what should go, stay or be expanded. - Sitush (talk) 10:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It mentions the faith sides purely as information in the turning point of the groups history, as also mentioning the conversions of some branches to Sikhism whilst others remaining Hindu too. I would like to see a Janjua Christian and Jewish reference as a researcher I have never come across a single reference for this? The main focus of the article is pertinent points in history. - Supersaiyan

Item moved for discussion

An IP and then a registered user has been adding

A segment of Janjuas influential Zamindar families living at shadia, Punjab ( District Mianwali), Katha sughral and Jauhar abad in Distt Khushab share the same ancestry. The Janjuas of Shadia District Mianwali are further divided into many khels or sub clans ie Aziz Khel, Mulke khel, phato khel,Raja Khel, Malu Khel, Diwan khel, Azmat Khel, Sikandar khel, Laungi Janjua, Moosi Janjua and bejari Janjuas .

They did this repeatedly without a citation but eventually added "Tareekh Aqwam-e-Kashmir Mohammad Deen Fauq" as the source, after some prompting.

As much as I would like to assume good faith, that is not a complete citation - eg: it needs a page number - & I do have real doubts about its reliability etc. Can someone please provide a copy of the relevant bit(s) from that source which support the above statement. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

And I have reverted again. This time the contributor supplied a different citation, although they have not responded to my initial request above. The alternate citation was some sort of village/district record. That is almost certain to be a primary source but I'll happily take a look at the stuff if someone can provide copies of the relevant bits. Again, I realise that I am laying myself open to accusations of bad faith here but, honestly, I think it is more a case of trying to guide a new contributor who is perhaps a little confused regarding how we do things here. - Sitush (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for replying late. I had cited my union council documents. To my thinking it could be a proof too, that records kept officially in the log books in our union council Shadia, Punjab of Distt Mianwali would show that we are being known as Janjuas with different sub clans. Had I seen this talk page earlier I would have created my account and have replied before. Please add the text as I wanted other Janjua brothers to know that some of their family members are also residing at shadia, Mianwali. Our ancestors had migrated from Katha area of Khushab around 2 centuries ago and Janjuas of Katha are still referred to as Rajas. All the relevant history regarding family tree or pedigree was kept with verbal references and that too was memorized by a "Mirasi" known as dada in a Janjua subcaste. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hajijanjua (talk • contribs) 17:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No problems, and I realise what it is that you want to achieve. Unfortunately, it falls foul of our policies. Your union council documents are almost certainly primary sources. It is one of the big problems that Wikipedia has got to face: that Indian history is most often documented orally and therefore does not "fit" with the Wikipedia methodology. I have no answer to that issue but, alas, we have to follow the rules as long as they exist. - Sitush (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Why Janjua are not mentioned in 36 royal races of Rajputs

Janjuas claim to be the oldest inhabitants in Jhelum area (even upto Porus so they say) yet why they are not mentioned in the 36 royal races of rajputs?--92.21.23.195 (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but this page is for discussion relating to improving the article and not for general questions. We do have a Reference desk where you may seek an answer to your query. - Sitush (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Tehreek-e-Janjua by Raja Muhammad Anwar Khan Janjua Published by Sahiwal Press

This book about the history of the Janjuas by Raja Muhammad Anwar Khan Janjua is provided as 3 citations in this article , will the editor who has provided these citations please also provide an ISBN number or link to this book or publisher .
Intothefire (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Published in 1982 but I've never been able to find an ISBN and I can find nothing about the publishers (although Sahiwal Press Club gets quite a few hits). I've been tempted to remove it in the past on the grounds that it seems most likely to be a minor and even self-published work by someone whose credentials are unknown. - Sitush (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Why the page Janjua Jat has been redirected to Janjua Rajput?

I would like to ask the admin why the Page Janjua Jat (which is well cited), moved to Janjua rajput. If you believe that Janjuas ar found in both Jats are Rajput, then change the title of the Page from Janjua Rajput to Simple Rajput. That would be more impartial and fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garjakh (talk • contribs) 14:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I redirected it, but I am not an admin. I did so because after removing the invalid content there remained just one sourced statement which basically covers the same ground that is noted in this article, which already mentions the Jat connection. The invalid content included:

• circular references
• use of Facebook, contrary to WP:ELNO
• breaches of our policy concerning biographies of living people
• potential misrepresentation of facts, caused by using an 80 year-old source
• failures to comply with WP:V, which in the situation that applied would certainly necessitate that a reliable source be provided

- Sitush (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and use of jatland.com, which is an open wiki. It would not surprise me if you had actually just copy/pasted that article from jatland but I must admit to not checking that because it was irrelevant. - Sitush (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You believed that Janjuas are found in both royal castes Rajputs and Jats then, rename the title to only Janjua that is simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garjakh (talk • contribs) 15:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not have any opinion, other than that article appeared to be inappropriate. What you think and what I think about Janjua origins/history etc is completely irrelevant to Wikipedia, which is intended to be based on what is verifiable. I noticed a few minutes ago that you are probably a fairly new contributor and I did add a welcome note to your talk page. It might be useful for you to read some of the items that are mentioned in that note, and in particular WP:V and WP:RS. - Sitush (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.15.184.195 (talk) 13:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am new to wikipedia but I have found many sources, talked to many people from India, Pakistan who called to be Janjua Jat. Could be help me in creating a page with proper citation. this would be really a great favor to bring something on board which is not discussed over internet before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garjakh (talk • contribs) 15:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want to provide some sources then feel free and I will certainly try to help you tidy them up etc. But, please, it really doesn't matter who you have talked to in India, Pakistan or elsewhere. Hearsay is insufficient for use on this project. - Sitush (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Find this link , where Janjuas are categorized as Jats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jat_clans_of_Rawalpindi_Division#Mianwali_District

http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=xQM9voN21ekC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Origins+and+History+of+Jats+and+Other+Allied+Nomadic+Tribes+of+India&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AqNLT_WUAZGGhQe9kdmcDg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false (Page 287, Table 9.1) A glossary of the tribes and castes of the Punjab and North-West India Volume II, Page 368 (where writers clearly have used the word Jat Janjua)

and few more sources I am working on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garjakh (talk • contribs) 15:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Those are sources that you used in the original article. We cannot use circular references (ie: we cannot depend on the content of other Wikipedia articles) and a mere mention of the phrase does not justify a separate article. Let's see what else can be found. It might be better if we do this at Talk:Janjua Jat but we'll see how we go. What is clear is that this topic has been discussed again and again here and nothing has yet come out of it. - Sitush (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, I have found some reliable sources where you can find this content clearly mentioned :"A Muhamadan Jat Clan (Agricultural) found in Montgomery " , Source : Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North West Frontier Province, 1911, Vol II, H. A. Rose, read Page number 356

I think now you should redirect the Janjua Jat page to it's original place. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.230.0 (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

That's what I am saying, if people from multiple areas and regions are talking or trying to see an article regaridng Janjua Jat, this is proof in itself. But I do understand that wikipedia need something to be used as citation. Can you tell me what could be used as a ref, so I could try to find it out.

- Garjakh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.158.91.167 (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Good quality books and articles from academic journals rank very highly; websites can be ok and so too can newspapers etc, but you probably need to exercise a bit more care with sources such as those. For example, it is not usually a great idea to use websites created by members of the Janjua community. The stuff does not have to be available online but anyone can challenge the reliability & so it makes sense to ensure that you can provide further information if necessary. You really should read the policy. - Sitush (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

In the Gazetteer Of Gujranwala Janjuas are listed as Jatts and so are the Awans! As you cross the Jhelum everybody begins to take important and foreign titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.56.86 (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Answer, i did some research on Jatt Janjua, I believe that Janjua is quite Old name language of sansikrat it has been used as name in different clans, Its quite possible some one used this NAME " JANJUA: who was Jatt, Now his decedents are confused that Janjua is also a clan which is not true, So I think Jatt Janjua must not confused by that name in their Jatt families, They can be known Jatt as family of some one Janjua but it don't make them JANJUA CLAN, they are Jatt clan but not Janjua Rajputs which is a clan. Umar Raja

Why not give references? Jatt is purely occupational term as is mistri darzi tarkhan. Read ibbetsons book on Punjab castes he states that many rajputs that converted to Islam lost status and began to farm and i quote 'there are no rajas and those of true rajput descent are Jatts because they farm' and no longer call themselves rajput. It is correct to say that in Punjab all rajputs have a Jatt section whether they are bhattis, khokhars, punwars, katoch all are found amongst Jatts also. I know a Minhas/bhatti fellow and his family are barbers/hairdressers. If janjua was as old as you say it would find mention in the 36 royal races of rajputs. yet in these 36 royal races are names like gurjar(gujjars) and even Jit(Jat) but no janjuas! what does that tell you? You need to research more.

For you kind information Janjua are mentioned in Royal Races, check this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_Race — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.158.35 (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Can I please refer everyone to my note near the top of this thread, timed at 15:05, 27 February 2011. Most of the comments in this section are pointless because they breach our policies in one way or another and therefore cannot be used to develop the article. For example, what you know personally is completely irrelevant to Wikipedia, and we do not treat our own articles as being reliable sources but rather as circular references. - Sitush (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 06:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Janjua Rajputs → Janjua – The present title is much less commonly found than the proposed title when using GSearch and GBooks and the proposal appears to comply with WP:COMMONNAME. In addition, the article itself refers to the possibility that the Janjua are Jat rather than Rajput and, as such, the present title is POV-y. Finally, the present title should in any event be singular rather than plural because the article concerns a social group. The Janjua article is a redirect to this one. Sitush (talk) 08:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Many famous writers like H.A. Rose has mentioned that Janjuas are found both in Rajput and Jat. And this should be moved to Janjua rather Janjua Rajput. Garjakh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.216.68 (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Horace Arthur Rose is an old British Raj amateur writer who relied on even older Raj writers and whose full-time job was in the legal profession. He is not particularly reliable and, despite my requests in our discussions elsewhere, you have provided no other sources. If there are two groups then they can be dealt with as such. You have said yourself that there are only a few differences between these alleged groups and, like it or not, Janjua is far and away the most common name used. Perhaps that is a failing of the sources - ie: they also do not see any significant difference - but I am afraid that it is sources on which we base on content here at Wikipedia. Should that situation change in the future then it is always possible to fork. - Sitush (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Just a note---I think Garjakh was agreeing with the move--claiming there are both Rajput and Jat Janjua would seem to imply that we should have one unified article at Janjua, with mention of both claims (which is already currently in this article). Qwyrxian (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – Proposal would seem to fit with WP:PRECISION, which advises being precise, but only as precise as necessary. With no other articles titled "Janjua", the one word would seem to suffice. ENeville (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why dont you called Janjua rather only Raja

I would like to bring kind notice of all Royal Janjuas, no matter you use Raja, Choudhry, Malik or Nawab. But kindly use Janjua as last name.

I have noticed that janjus in Jhelum, where they are most strong clan. They just focus on Raja not Janjua, this is the reason the many irrelevant low castes are adopting this royal title and making janjua disregarded in the society.

Majority people in the society are not well aware of what exactly the Janjuas are, because of this behavior.

This is a humble request to all Janjuas that proud of being called Janjua if you really want to save the royalty of the clan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garjakh (talk • contribs) 15:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You may wish to read WP:SOAPBOX. These talk pages do not exist for you to make general appeals. Please, slow down and read up on some of our policies, as I suggested a few minutes ago. A little patience now could serve you very well in the future. - Sitush (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Umar Janjua — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.122.138 (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Close: this is unhelpful, disruptive and contrary to the purpose of this talk page. Please read the informational notices at the head of this page and do not edit this discussion further. - Sitush (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Raja Sahib, i have been reading your article regulary, but now I realised that your article is constantly changing by some unknown researches I think its not improving but getting messed. Please stop these people to add their own opinions which are based on purely jealously and hatred and narrow thinking of against Islam, I will suggest Your should Keep your article pure as Muslim Janjua Rajputs. But if you will start making happy every one than one your article will be nothing more than a rubbish Kind Regards Umar Raja Jhelum — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.15.184.195 (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC) First of all decide if you are a muslim or a rajput because rajput is title given to people who fight for hinduatva. even people from bhil and gond low castes became rajputs because they fought for brahmans religion. rajput is a hindu religious title and you muslims who call yourselves rajputs are not true muslims but force converted by likes of ghazni, sher shah suri, moghuls because you always were defeated in battlefield by muslims and NEVER committed 'JOHAR' which is way of the true rajputs on contrary youy saved your lives by converting on battlefield and giving your women to invading muslims. this is historical fact that you janjuas never defeated any invading muslim army. Now you think by calling yourselves rajputs you can make yourself higher than other muslims and all you are doing is showing that from inside you still worship hindu casteism becasue Islam has no caste all are equal in sight of God but you refuse to accept this. please go back to rajasthan where all muslim rajputs are outcastes and called 'ranghars'. first have your hindu brahmans accept you as rajputs because muslims do not need such a people or such titles. and for reference read sher shah suris nama and timurnama and see how you rajputs were forced to be cirumcized on battlefield. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.76.43 (talk) 13:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC) Hello Mr. Anti-Rajput. We Rajputs are true defenders of the Indian-Subcontinent.We Rajputs sacrificed our lives, properties, honours and even our Hindu Dharma in order to save and protect the Hindu nation and the Indian-Subcontinent from foreign invaders.We will keep on defending our homeland Bharat from invaders.Rajputs spillet their blood on every inch of Bharat in order to defend it from invadres.Rajbaz (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of word Janjua

Many theories have circulated as to meaning of this word one being that they broke the sacred thread janju and became musalaman but then why would those people that never accpeted Islam still call themselves Janjua? My personal research has led me to conclude that many of the Rajputs who offered daughters to muslim invaders were excommunicated by their tribe and this led to their migration and also led to a name change. For ex the word 'Janj' means a wedding barat and i believe that those rajputs that attended the wedding in which their women were married to musalmans were outcasted and named janjua for attending the wedding. This can also be found in other rajput clans like the 'chibs' who have an ancestor called 'shadi khan'. Of course they have invented a fancy story for shadi khan and call him baba shadi shaheed and how he married Jahangeers daughter for which there is no evidence. On the contrary the musalmans were in habit of recieving daughters from conquered rajputs and would allow them to retain their rule. This was the general rule in dealing with rajputs who were conquered and is something that is not being accepted by converted rajputs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.15.10 (talk) 08:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The above comments are offensive. Somebody is making mockery of names Janjua and Shadi Khan Shaheed.These are baseless allegations.The above comment should be deleted.Forcing and blackmailing people to give away their womenfolk is badmashi and ghundadhirdi.Rajbaz (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a pointless contribution. I would encourage you to read the notices at the top of this page and note especially that this facility exists to discuss improvements to the article and is not for general discussion about the article subject. Unless you are going to provide some verification from reliable sources, your comment drifts the wrong side of that line. - Sitush (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sitush.Janjua is a Rajput tribe.The title Janjua Rajput should not be changed.Those non-Rajputs who are claiming to be Janjua are either mixed caste or they have adopted the Janjua name for some reason.Anyway, Janjua Rajputs belong in Rajput caste, Janjua Jats belong in Jat caste, Tarkhan Janjuas belong in Tarkhan caste.There is no need to mention Non-Rajputs Janjuas in Janjua Rajput article.Rajbaz (talk) 11:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Except, as per recent past discussions and a page move, this is not an article about just the Janjua Rajputs. At present, it is an article concerning all communities that use the Janjua name. Since that decision is recent, we will have to stick with it. - Sitush (talk) 11:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

RSS/Shiv Sena agenda in this article.

A number of comments in this section are attacks, are offensive, or are otherwise just generally unacceptable. None of them help improve the article, because none of them cite reliable sources. If anyone wants to actually improve the article, please start a new section and provide the sources you believe should be used and what you think the article should say; you may want to read WP:RS first. However, this page does not exist for general discussions on the topic, for soapboxing or as an internet discussion forum. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone keeps removing legitimate citations and the term "Rajput" from the article. I sense a Hindhu extremist element in here. Being a Janjua from Chakwal, I know that we are nothing but Rajputs, and I have never seen a Janjua claiming to be a Jatt or something else. And I am talking about the genuine Janjuas, and not "Nais" who settle in cities and adopt different Surnames and castes. Rajput is a tribe, and means "sons of kings", it has nothing to do with "warriors who fight for Hindhuism". British have described Janjuas as "doubtless pure Rajputs", hence I don't need biased Hindhu editors on Shiv Sena pay-roll to tell me otherwise. This whole attitude is converting Wikipedia from an encyclopedia into a hate filled forum. Its because of such people that Wikipedia has lost all its credibility. Even though i am not a janjua but i have a passionate interest in tribes of pakistan i would like to ask you have you travelled to any other part where janjuas live like in gujrat gujranwala lahore? you will find many janjuas who do not claim to be rajputs. this article is written based on personal theories and has little historical proof to back up its claim. i am not the person who has edited this btw. what we have in this article is a fancy and exagerated history of janjuas without taking into consideration how tribal communites have evolved and devolved in pakistan. For example the ghummans are a very well known Jatt tribe that were descended from janjuas but according to your own researchers from chakwal/jhelum ghumman can only be a rajput when this is not the case. Also Raniyals are proud Jatt community in azad kashmir yet because some raniyals lay claim to being rajputs the Jatt Raniyals are not accpeted as being descended from janjuas either. I know Ratials who are descended from the highest rajputs 'Katoch' yet they say they are stricly Jatts. question is what is a rajput? there are no rajas or sons of rajas today. rajput was a social grade given to those who fight for hinduatva and consisted of many tribes that were grouped together and labled as rajputs. One tribe in one district claims to be rajput yet the same people from the same tribe in another district say they are Jatt so how can you deny these facts? is it necssary for every janjua to call himself a rajput or else according to you he has no right to call himself a janjua? Is this article stricly for janjuas of chakwal or is it a general article that includes all janjuas? Now to the article were can you provide me proof that Porus was a janjua or anandpal jaypal were janjuas? these are just your fanciful theories to make yourself feel unique that have no historical backing whatsoever. I would like to see the history of the tribes of pakistan written in a true manner rather than just copying pasting what we think will look fanciful for ourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.86.49 (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC) First of all, I have never heard about "Janjuas" who hail from places like Gujranwala and Lahore. If someone claims that, then that should be verified. I assume you are from India, and don't know anything about Punjabi customs, and the practice by low caste people to adopt surnames of famous tribes, like for instance, almost everyone in Punjab claims to be a Bhatti Rajput, just like Black nationalists in America claim to be the descendants of Zulu tribe, and Romani gypsies claim to be the descendants of Rajputs. If your theories are to be accepted as facts, then Bhatti tribe is actually a caste lower than jatts, and Chauhans are Gujjars, as a lot of people from Sialkot, Gujranwala will tell you. Chauhan is a Gujjar surname in many areas of Punjab, so can we safely say that Chauhans are actually Gujjars then? Will a descendant of Chauhan kings from Rajasthan ever accept that? We have a family tree, that links us straight to 11th century ancestor of all Janjuas, who is known as Raja Mal. I have seen people from places like Gujrat claiming to be Janjuas, but they lack any form of a family tree or something. Janjuas of Jhelum, chakwal, Rawalpindi etc, are completely aware of their family trees. Any true Janjua will know if he is a descendant of Jodh Khan(like myself), Kala Khan(the janjuas of Matore), Khakha etc. If you can find some Janjua from Gujranwala or Lahore, who can tell you his lineage from one of the sons of Raja Mal Khan, please kindly let me know. I wish you all the luck on that. And If some Jatt tribe claims to be Janjua, then that probably means that their Janjua ancestors started marrying into other castes and lost their social class, and became Jatts, though I am sceptical about that. Then again, find me some Jatt Janjua from the original Janjua homeland of Potwar Plateau, and I'll accept the theories that you are making. Thirdly there are sons of Rajas today, and a lot of people can prove that by showing you their family trees with names of kings or cheifs written on them; it has been a Rajput custom to record their full lineages. Find me a Gujjar or Jatt tribe that have the names of their ancestors recorded in the form of family trees(ancestors before the age of Ranjit Singh). I never talked about Raja Porus being my ancestor or something, but as far as Jaypal is concerned, I am not well aware of that, but many historians, like Alexander Cunningham theorised that link. Lastly, Indians need to put their Biases aside, and treat Wikipedia like an encyclopedia instead of a Shiv Sena forum. Find me one historical primary source, that describes Janjua as a "Jatt" tribe, which someone is trying too hard to prove. And secondly I am not trying to be unique or something, that is what you think. You have a whole array of literature in this article that shows the unique standing of the Janjuas, as narrated by british historians, who tend to unbiased than most others because they are not bound to any local religion. I don't need a Hindhu extremist to tell me otherwise. It is this attitude of Wikipedia pseudo-historians, that WIkipedia is held in low esteem throughout the academia. History should be treated as history, and not distorted for political or social reasons, like a lot of Right Wing parties do. I will admit that I am not a historian myself, but people disregarding all the citations in this article are the ones who prompted me to discuss it here. Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.142.144 (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC) Janjuas and Awans are both listed as Jatts in the Gujranwala District Gazatteer which is written by the british and both tribes were few thousands in number. Get the book and read it you will find this info under the tribal listing section. You say british historians were not biased which is correct yet 'they' say that rajput and jatts of Punjab are of the same stock where rajput is just a social grade. Denzil ibbetson states in 'Punjab Castes' that the true rajputs became landlord farmers and hence were termed Jatts he also states that beyond the jhelum river everyone calls themselves 'raja' or rajput. Why would the Awans jhelum area say they are arabs and kutab shahis yet in gujranwala district they record themselves as Jatts. answer is simple the Awans were a jatt tribe and on accepting Islam at hands of qutub shah began to call themselves 'awan'. Your talking about low castes calling themselves bhatti and what are low castes? they belong to the dravidian family and the rajputs according to denzil ibbetson are not free from 'dravidian' mixture something he never ascribed to the Jatts or Gujjars Punjab but ascribed to them a forign origin. Yes sure your tribe has a family tree as rajputs had brahmans that were record keepers and Jatts had mirasis who were record keepers. Many Jatt family trees can be found in the book 'tribes and castes of punjab and nwfp province' but what i find odd is that janjuas have no recollection as to when they accepted islam and what the meaning of the word 'janjua' is. According to the Jhelum district gazatteer janjuas are a branch of the 'rathore' rajputs and same british writers state that the tract which is occupied by the janjuas was not their original home and the area around tilla jhelum was home to the Jatt tribe in the same book it says that the janjuas were not rulers over jatts through strength or power but through mutual respect and harmony. Now to the Gujjars who are mentioned in the 36 tribes of rajputs as 'gurjar' and also is mentioned a tribe called 'Jit' which according to james todd is no other than the Jat tribe but we have no mention of the janjuas in this list. What you seem to be forgetting is these jatts and gujjars were some of the earliers followers of Islam. In the chachnama history of mohd bin qasims invasion of sindh the jats were the first to join the arabs to fight raja daher and first to accept Islam and in islamic faith caste jaat has no place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.56.181 (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC) I certainly have removed some of the content to which you appear to be referring. However, I am not even of a religious bent, let alone an extremist politico-religious one. Rather than write reams of text containing your opinions etc, what you need to do is produce some reliable sources. To the best of my recollection, this is the only reason why I removed content. If you continue to assume bad faith by making wild accusations against fellow contributors then you could find yourself being blocked from editing. This article is one that is subject to general sanctions, as per the notice at the top of this page: your comments are unacceptable. - Sitush (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC) You clearly did not get my point. You don't become a Janjua, or an Awan just by saying that you are one. Did these Awans and Janjuas in Gujranwala present a family tree to the British authorities to prove their original genealogy? I have seen Jatts from Sialkot claiming to be Rajas in Rawalpindi,does that mean they are one? My old servant, a Kumhar by caste, had written "Gakkhar Rajput" in a government census, he even admits that he is not one. And you are just citing one author, yet this page is full of different citations. As far as Jatts are concerned, Jatts have very little influence in Pothwar region of northern Punjab. Majority of land in these areas is owned by Janjuas and Gakkhars,where as, Jatts are described as "tenants" by the British. They do enjoy a high social standing in the Punjab plains, but they have no such importance in Pothwar. Awans, Gakkhars and Janjuas are always described as the ruling tribes of Pothwar. As far as Awans are concerned, you cited them claiming to be Jatts in Gujranwala, but what about places like Abottabad and Kashmir? They even call themselves "qutb shahi Awan" over there. Thirdly, about the word Janjua not meaning anything; does the word Gakkhar mean anything? Does the name Cheema mean anything? Then you claimed that Jatts and Gujjars are described as foreigners, I don't get your point, is it wrong to have dravidian blood in your veins? Does having a supposedly "foreigner" origin make you better? Recent genetic studies on Jatts have shown a similarity with the Gypsies of eastern europe and Gujjars have been labelled as other backwards castes in modern day India, what does that prove then? Besides, Janjuas had- and still have, the practice of marrying into Janjuas, and other Rajas like Gakkhars etc only; can you say the same for Gujjars and Jatts? Denzil Ibettson claims that Janjuas might be foreigner to Pothwar, but what about Cunningham; he actually linked Janjuas to the Hindu Shahi emperors and called them "Aryans". You revealed your ulterior racist/political beliefs just by saying that. But I am not surprised, people of subcontinent have a tendency to politicize history. I have seen a lot of Jatt nationalists claiming renowned Rajput clans, such as Tiwanas and Khars as Jatts, which has something to do with ulterior political motives. Jatts have a very vague place in history before the Mughal era, and they have been described as Mercenaries, and not as "chiefs" who joined Muhammad Bin Qasim. Jatt nationalists claim Rajput tribes as Jatts to "feel unique about themselves", as you put it, just like black nationalists claiming ancient Egyptian kingdoms to be "black". My point being, you can't become a Janjua by just saying that you are a Janjua. I can't say the same for the Jatts and Gujjars, but to be a Janjua, you need to have a proper family history and not just claims. There is a difference between a genuine Janjua and a Nai(see Rehman Malik for more details). Janjuas and Awans are both listed as Jatts in the Gujranwala District Gazatteer which is written by the british and both tribes were few thousands in number. Get the book and read it you will find this info under the tribal listing section. You say british historians were not biased which is correct yet 'they' say that rajput and jatts of Punjab are of the same stock where rajput is just a social grade. Denzil ibbetson states in 'Punjab Castes' that the true rajputs became landlord farmers and hence were termed Jatts he also states that beyond the jhelum river everyone calls themselves 'raja' or rajput. Why would the Awans jhelum area say they are arabs and kutab shahis yet in gujranwala district they record themselves as Jatts. answer is simple the Awans were a jatt tribe and on accepting Islam at hands of qutub shah began to call themselves 'awan'. Your talking about low castes calling themselves bhatti and what are low castes? they belong to the dravidian family and the rajputs according to denzil ibbetson are not free from 'dravidian' mixture something he never ascribed to the Jatts or Gujjars Punjab but ascribed to them a forign origin. Yes sure your tribe has a family tree as rajputs had brahmans that were record keepers and Jatts had mirasis who were record keepers. Many Jatt family trees can be found in the book 'tribes and castes of punjab and nwfp province' but what i find odd is that janjuas have no recollection as to when they accepted islam and what the meaning of the word 'janjua' is. According to the Jhelum district gazatteer janjuas are a branch of the 'rathore' rajputs and same british writers state that the tract which is occupied by the janjuas was not their original home and the area around tilla jhelum was home to the Jatt tribe in the same book it says that the janjuas were not rulers over jatts through strength or power but through mutual respect and harmony. Now to the Gujjars who are mentioned in the 36 tribes of rajputs as 'gurjar' and also is mentioned a tribe called 'Jit' which according to james todd is no other than the Jat tribe but we have no mention of the janjuas in this list. What you seem to be forgetting is these jatts and gujjars were some of the earliers followers of Islam. In the chachnama history of mohd bin qasims invasion of sindh the jats were the first to join the arabs to fight raja daher and first to accept Islam and in islamic faith caste jaat has no place.--182.177.35.155 (talk) 06:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC) I am not even reading the above wall of text in full. You need to provide some proper sources, and preferably not ones written ages ago. - Sitush (talk) 10:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC) To be Rajput both parents have to be Rajput.To be white both parents have to be white.In the Annals and antiquities of Rajasthan Co. James Tod has mentioned Janjuas as Rajput, in second volume in the Annals of Bhattis.There are Hindu Tanolis.They are Chander vanshi.This was on a Hindu Rajput matrimonial Website. In royal families social mobility is downward.Rajput family members were loosing their Royal status and adopting non-royal occupations and falling into those castes.Some were marrying non-rajput women and children belonged to the mother,s caste.In the Annals of Bhattis Tod says that Bhattis passed their royal blood in many other castes through marriage. Bhatti is short for Bhataraka.Bhataraka is a Sanskrit word which means lord or warrior.Bhataraka was used by Hindu kings as a title.One of Bhatti,s seven brothers was called Janj.Tod hypothesised that Janjuas may be descended from Bhatti,s brother.This mesns janj or janju is a Hindu name. In the Quran it says that god has made people into tribes so that they may recognise each other.Rajput, Janjua and Bhatti etc. are identities.If Rajputs or Janjuas stop calling themselves rajput and janjuas then they will loose their identities.This is against Islam.In Islam Pathans. Baloch, Mughals, Sayeds, Hashmis, Qureshis, Butts and Dars use their tribal Idendtities.No body tells them not to call themselves by these names.They also use titles of Sheikh, pir,Sayed, Khan ,Mirza and malik etc.But, if Rajputs, Jats and Gujjars call themselves by their tribal names or use titles of Raja, Rana, Rai, Rao, Thakur and Chaudhry then some people have problem.Why the double standards.This is hypocracy.These people are two faced mongrels. Some Hindu Rajputs married their daughters to the Mughals.These Hindu women became Empresses of India.They gave birth to Kings and Emperors like Jahangir, Shahjahan and Aurangzeb.They were not concubines.They were Queens.They did not become muslim.They were allowed to keep their hindu religion.They had their temples in the muslim palaces.Mughals used to celebrate Hindu festivals.Hindus were treated as equal citizens.Hindus did not have to pay jizya.Every Hindu benefitted from these matrimonial alliances.Rajputs were the pillar that was holding the mughal Empire.When Aurangzeb tried to impose jizya, Rajputs rebelled and the Mughal Empire crumbled.tbc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajbaz (talk • contribs) 12:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC) Denzil Ibettson also said that jatts in Rawalpindi don't like being called Jatts because of low repute attributed to that name in Pothwar area of Punjab. He also mentioned that anyone in Pothwar, who is not a sayyid, rajput, janjua, gakhar or awan, is known as jatt. As far as dravidian blood is concerned, every race in sub-continent has different levels of dravidian blood in their veins. Even balochis have a bit of dravidian blood in them. And Ibettson described Jatts and Gujjars as either turkic or indo-scythian(who were thought to be non-aryan at that time). In the same book, various derogatory remarks are used for gujjars and jatts, so don't cite Denzil Ibettson to prove any esteemed place of these two tribes. And you just made up that mutual interest and understanding part, that's how Babar described the Janjua chiefdoms. He described them as ruling in a brotherly manner. Todd used the term Gurjara for the Gurjara-pratihara Rajput confederation of Rajasthan, who later became known as Chauhans. He did not certainly list Gujjars as 36 royal clans of rajputs. As for the name Janjua not meaning anything; it is theorized to mean "janamejaya" who was a hero in hindhu mythological epics, but that's just a theory. Theories shouldn't be taken as facts. And caste names are not supposed to mean anything, they are just names lol. Does bugti or afridi mean anything? Does katoch mean anything? And as a final word, I would like to thank other proud Janjua Rajputs defending the identity of their clan. An overwhelming majority of Janjuas are rajputs, and pothwari, and almost all the colonial sources describe them as. so jatt, gujjar and hindhu supremacists should quit their propaganda campaign, and find another hobby. Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.142.144 (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC) James Tod is not a reliable source. - Sitush (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

THIS ARTICLE HAS BECOME RUBISH

Raja sahib, I have been following this article regularly, I noticed lots of changes has been taking place. I believe tittle should be JANJUA RAJPUT as it has ealier. It seems now admin is not sure about any thing, Raja saab, you have confused every thing since Jatt and Rajput issue you have mixed. I think this article has no more importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.184.108 (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

We write what reliable sources say. And reliable sources say there are both Rajput and Jatt Janjua. Unless you have sources that clearly show the ones in the article are wrong, we can't remove them (and, even then, we'd probably just put both opinions). Please understand that Wikipedia is not based on personal opinions, but on verified info from reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for answer, but there is one thing which is called logic and logic says there can't be both at the same time, jatt and Rajput. so in my opinion we should follow the oldest theory as source of information which narrates that Janjua are Rajputs. what you say?

We have a policy of No original research in articles. This means that articles are not written according to what editors think is logical. Articles are written according to what reliable sources say.

For historical facts, we follow mainly the books written by historians. The historians analyze the documents and make conclusions about what they mean. Then we summarize those conclusions. (and books have to be assessed to make sure that they are reliable. Old history books are sometimes outdated, and sometimes they are deprecated by newer books or by books of higher quality). --Enric Naval (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Enric Naval's basically said my point, but I'll put it in my own words: the oldest theory is, in fact, the least likely to be true. That doesn't mean we ignore it, it just means that we would never designate that as the "best" theory. More generally, you are correct that they can't be both...but it is also correct that different people have opinions about which is correct. Wikipedia's policy (it's in wP:NPOV) says that when people disagree, our goal is not to try to figure out who is correct. Our job is, in fact, on purpose, to show both sides, taking care to weight the article to match the prevalence of the theories in the real world. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claims.

Janjua is a Rajput clan, and they are called Rajputs in almost all the historical sources and journalistic articles. The ancestral home of Janjua Rajputs is Salt Range, as described by various historical gazetteers. Jatts were described as tenants of Janjuas by imperial gazetteers. The so called people claiming to "Janjua Jatts" are either descendants of some Janjua individuals who married women from lower castes, or plain "nais" i'e people who claim different castes. If Janjuas can be called Jatts, then I think every other Rajput clan should be called Jatt, as a lot of Jatt clans claim descent from Rajput clans. Unlike the majority of Jatt clans, Rajputs, especially Mian Sahu Rajputs(the term used for first class Rajputs) have a tradition of keeping ancestral records. To be a pure Janjua, one must have their ancestral records. Claims alone do not determine your ethnicity. If someone from Gujranwala or Faisalabad, etc, claims to be a Janjua, he/she should know from which line of Janjua clan that individual is from. For example, a nai would never know if he's a descendant of Jodh Khan, Wir Khan or Kala Khan etc. As far as being a Jatt is concerned, I think getting called a Jatt is the biggest insult, that the real "Mian Sahu" Janjua Rajputs of Rawalpindi division have to suffer. Its not that we have something against Jatts, but "Nais" should never rob a clan's identity. So its my humble request to all the editors with ulterior motives to put aside your biases and rely on historical sources instead of personal biases and political views. An overwhelming majority of historical records, other than a book by H.A.Rose and some Gazetteer from Gujranwala, put Janjua clan as the "only pure Rajputs" of Pothwar plains. I suspect all these edit wars placing Janjuas as Jatts is an attempt by Jatt nationalists' to esteem any place of Jatts. The role of Jatts in the history of Punjab is irrelevant before the rise of Sikhs, hence the Jatt nationalists are trying to claim famous Rajput clans as Jatts. Secondly, Hindhu extremists should also rely upon historical citations instead of blind hatred of a religion or something. They should make a similar edit war against Chauhan Rajput and Punwar Rajput pages, as a few gazetteers describe those clans as Gujjars.

P.S: Use citations from reputable sources instead of personal biases on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.142.144 (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read the numerous discussions above concerning this point. We have to work within the bounds of our policies. - Sitush (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Secondly, why is H.A.Rose used as a chief source, and Denzil Ibettson mysteriously removed. Denzil Ibettson's work was used directly by H.A.Rose. Can anyone answer that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.142.144 (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Ideally we would use neither because they are very poor, but since Rose followed Ibbetson it is to be assumed that he was "standing on the shoulders of giants". We almost always prefer more modern sources. - Sitush (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

VALA KATHIAS.

In Saurashtra region, in the Indian state of Gujrat, there is a Rajput tribe called VALA Rajputs.A Vala Rajput married a Kathi woman and the descendants of this Vala Rajput are called Vala Kathis.Vala Kathis belong in the Kathi tribe and inter-marry with the Kathis..They are not considered Rajput.There are other Rajputs who married Kathi women but the children do not use their Rajput father,s tribal name, instead they use their Rajput father,s first name as their surname.This is mentioned in the book called "The Rajputs of Saurashtra", written by Virbhadra Singhji and in the fourth chapter.After so many generations the Vala Kathis have lost their pure Rajput blood and have become full-fledged Kathis.Anyway, to be a Rajput both parents have to be Rajput.

The point is that if there are people who are using Rajput tribal names but they do not call themselves rajput and are not considered rajput then they do not belong in the Rajput articles.They belong in their present castes and in the articles of their present castes.During the British rule in India some members of Non-rajput castes starting using Rajput tribal names in order to get into the British army.What is the reason given by the Janjua Jatts for calling themselves Janjuas?.Rajbaz (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

As always, we need reliable sources. The reasons for calling Janjua Jatts as Janjua is because reliable sources do. While we can possibly include other reliable sources that argue against this, we won't remove the other claims. It's not unusual for a WP article to have multiple competing theoriesQwyrxian (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

In the "origin and history of Jatts and other allied nomadic tribes of India", B.S.Nijjar, the author, who is also a jatt, says on page 99 about Jatts of Gujjar Khan,"many of them, borrowing Rajput tribal names, enlist in native army".On the other hand it mentions about two Rajput brothers called Yas and Kals.Yas married in his own rajput caste and his descendants are called Baju Rajputs and his brother Kals married in a Jatt family and his descendants are called Bajwa Rajputs.Both Baju Rajputs and Bajwa Jatts acknowledge their common descent.So far there are two reasons why Rajput tribal names are found in non-Rajput castes.One reason is that Non-Rajputs have borrowed rajput tribal names and the other reason is mixed marriages.Borrowing Rajput tribal names is very common.When non-Rajput people move from rural areas to towns and cities, they usually borrow Rajput and other higher caste tribal names.Whether people have borrowed Rajput tribal names or they are of mixed descent, either way they do not belong in Rajput articles.This is how caste system works, whether somebody likes it or not.It is not up to the European scholars to decide about what caste is or what caste is not. Caste is complicated subject.One has to be in it, in order to know it, to understand it and to appreciate it.Rajbaz (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)